Unprecedented Recent Summer Warmth in Arctic Canada

(Dr. Easterbrook's) Conclusions

From the foregoing data and analyses, what is abundantly clear is that the Miller et al. paper is so badly flawed with unwarranted assumptions, poorly thought out assertions, and astonishingly bad logic that their conclusion “temperatures of the past century must have exceeded those of any century in more than 44 ka” cannot be considered valid.

How could reputable scientists come to such incorrect conclusions? Perhaps the last sentence in their conclusions section gives us a clue: “anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have now resulted in unprecedented recent summer warmth that is well outside the range of that attributable to natural climate variability.”

Even if the conclusions in the paper were correct, they wouldn’t prove anything about CO2 as the cause of climatic warming, so this statement suggests that the real purpose of the paper was to push CO2 at the expense of objective science.

Read the facts leading up to the above conclusions @ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/02/miller-et-al-s-unprecedented-recent-summer-warmth-in-arctic-canada-bad-assumptions-poor-logic-and-contrary-to-other-evidence-of-arctic-temperatures/#more-96700

SamCogar wrote:Miller et al.’s study

"Bad assumptions, poor logic, and contrary to other evidence of Arctic temperatures." Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA

(Dr. Easterbrook's) Conclusions

From the foregoing data and analyses, what is abundantly clear is that the Miller et al. paper is so badly flawed with unwarranted assumptions, poorly thought out assertions, and astonishingly bad logic that their conclusion “temperatures of the past century must have exceeded those of any century in more than 44 ka” cannot be considered valid.

How could reputable scientists come to such incorrect conclusions? Perhaps the last sentence in their conclusions section gives us a clue: “anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases have now resulted in unprecedented recent summer warmth that is well outside the range of that attributable to natural climate variability.”

Even if the conclusions in the paper were correct, they wouldn’t prove anything about CO2 as the cause of climatic warming, so this statement suggests that the real purpose of the paper was to push CO2 at the expense of objective science.

Read the facts leading up to the above conclusions @ http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/02/miller-et-al-s-unprecedented-recent-summer-warmth-in-arctic-canada-bad-assumptions-poor-logic-and-contrary-to-other-evidence-of-arctic-temperatures/#more-96700